Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The claims received 4/13/2026 are entered. Claims 3, 7, and 20 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/6/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The document not provided:
PNG
media_image1.png
73
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 17, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogalski (US 2013/0251549).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Rogalski discloses a housing for a refrigerant compressor, comprising:
a first portion (16) made of a metallic material ([0018]) and surrounding moving parts of the refrigerant compressor; and
a second portion (14) mounted to the first portion and surrounding non-moving, electronic parts of the refrigerant compressor, wherein the second portion is made of a plastic material ([0019]), wherein the second portion includes a frame (20,22,40,42, etc.) and a cover (18) mounted to the frame, wherein the frame includes an arcuate contour substantially matching a contour of the first portion (16), wherein the frame directly contacts the first portion, and wherein the frame and cover cooperate to enclose a cavity for non-moving, electronic parts (44,46) such that the first portion does not form a boundary of the cavity (internal boundary is formed by wall 50).
Regarding claim 6, Rogalski discloses the first portion (16) includes a body centered about axis of rotation of the moving parts, wherein the body is substantially cylindrical.
Regarding claim 21, Rogalski discloses the frame includes a first surface (reverse face of 50) facing the first portion and directly contacting the first portion, and second surface (obverse face of 50) facing away from the first portion, wherein the arcuate contour is provided on the first surface, and wherein the non-moving electronic parts are mounted to the second surface ([0024]; mounting screws shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 22, Rogalski discloses the frame separates the non-moving, electronic parts from the first portion (16) such that the non-moving, electronic parts are spaced apart from the first portion by the frame (at least frame portion 50 is between electronic parts and first portion 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogalski (US 2013/0251549) in view of Conry (US 5,857,348).
Regarding claim 2, Rogalski discloses the first portion is made of metal but is silent concerning a type of metal. Conry discloses a first portion of a compressor that is made of aluminum (“aluminium alloy or other suitable metal” 3:24-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the first portion of Rogalski from a metal material, such as aluminum, in order to provide a rigid casing structure.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogalski (US 2013/0251549) in view of De Bernardi et al (US 7,194,871) and Ishida (US 9,624,370)
Regarding claim 4, Rogalshi discloses the second portion is made of plastic but is silent concerning the plastic being recycled.
With respect to the product-by-process limitation (bold, italicized above), “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance, the method of recycling does not impart structure distinct from the prior art. MPEP 2113.
Alternatively, De Bernardi discloses the use of ABS plastic for refrigerant compressor terminal boxes (2:53-36 and 61-64) and Ishida evidences recycling ABS plastic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the second portion by recycling plastic in order to reduce waste.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogalski (US 2013/0251549) in view of De Bernardi et al (US 7,194,871) and Willard (US 5,324,589).
Regarding claim 5, Rogalski discloses the second portion is made of plastic but is silent concerning the plastic being formed by injection molding or additive manufacturing process.
With respect to the product-by-process limitation (bold, italicized above), “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance, the method of injection molding or additive manufacturing does not impart structure distinct from the prior art. MPEP 2113.
Alternatively, De Bernardi discloses the use of ABS plastic for refrigerant compressor terminal boxes (2:53-36 and 61-64) and Willard evidences ABS plastic is particularly suitable for use in injection molding (1:14-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the second portion by injection molding or additive manufacturing in form a high number of parts at low cost (injection molding) or few complex parts quickly (additive manufacturing).
Claim(s) 8-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogalski (US 2013/0251549), in view of Schnetzka et al (US 7,640,767), and in further view of Funahashi et al (US 7,207,187).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 18, Rogalski discloses the housing as recited in claim 6, and where the frame (20,22,40,42, etc.) directly contacts the body including an arcuate contour substantially matching the contour of the body but lacks plural frame and their locations.
Schnetzka discloses providing a plurality of electronic components to compressors, including each with their own housing attached to the compressor.
Funahashi et al discloses mounting a plurality of electronic components for a compressor at a top and two opposing sides of the compressor (shown throughout figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Rogalski with a plurality of electronics housings in order to house plural electronic components in a compact manner for the system (2:21-25). Moreover, it has been held that the particular position of an element does not render a claim non-obvious when rearranging said element would not have modified the operation of the device. Further the particular location can be regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a first frame mounted to a top of the body and second and third frames mounted to opposing sides of the body in order to accommodate installation constraints, such as space within the machine room of the unit. There is no invention in merely rearranging an element found in prior art.
Regarding claims 11-13, Rogalski discloses electrical and electronic components ([0022]-[0031]) mounted to the frame including power source connections ([0023]) and control electronics ([0024]). Rogalski does not assign each of these units to their own frame nor discusses a variable frequency drive. Schnetzka discloses a frame housing a variable frequency drive (104), power source connections (100), and control electronics (308). Continuing the analysis from claims 8-10, it has been held that the particular position of an element does not render a claim non-obvious when rearranging said element would not have modified the operation of the device. Further the particular location can be regarded as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a first, second and third frames for the respective components in order to accommodate installation constraints, such as space within the machine room of the unit. There is no invention in merely rearranging an element found in prior art.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 19, Rogalski discloses a plastic cover (18) for the frame (20,22,40,42,et.c), wherein the cover is received in a groove of the frame (groove formed about perimeter of frame and additional groove for receiving mounting tabs 24). Regarding first, second, and third, the plural elements are provided at modification in discussion of claims 8-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection.
The examiner agrees that De Bernardi includes an open side face that seals against the sidewall of the compressor. For that reason Rogalski is now relied upon as the primary reference
Regarding official notice, evidence has been provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Girod et al (US 7,150,604) electronics box for a compressor.
Broussard et al (US 8,508,181) plural housings for compressor electronics.
Duga et al (US 6,679,076) plural housings for compressor electronics.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights